←back to thread

329 points beeburrt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.298s | source
Show context
rwarfield ◴[] No.44002548[source]
We have normalized the treatment of the financial and payments systems as things that exist primarily to perform law enforcement surveillance functions. It's the same dynamic that leads to debanking of small accounts - payments firms exist on thin margins and the potential fines for inadvertently servicing a bad actor are stratospheric, so it's entirely logical to play it safe by refusing to service anyone whose profile looks even the slightest bit risky.
replies(8): >>44002574 #>>44002616 #>>44002858 #>>44002883 #>>44002926 #>>44003438 #>>44006920 #>>44009595 #
ThePhysicist ◴[] No.44002883[source]
These companies aren't public utilities, no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus, why would that be different for US companies offering donations over the Internet? The fact is that all platforms that facilitate cross-border money transfers between two parties without clear services or good being exchanged are used for all kinds of money laundering, and governments try to contain that for good reasons. In the end they probably don't care much about the revenue they make in these countries as it's probably negligible. Again, their good right to do so, I don't see any issue with this at all.
replies(4): >>44002918 #>>44002920 #>>44003364 #>>44005366 #
growlNark ◴[] No.44005366[source]
> no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus

Frankly, it's none of my state's damn business who I exchange money with. Their beef with other states is their problem—why are they dragging us through their bullshit?

If they want to collect taxes on it, at least that has the veneer of doing their job properly, and I'm happy to pay it.

replies(1): >>44007310 #
passivegains ◴[] No.44007310[source]
if someone, for example, exchanges funds with a foreign nation to evade sanctions while they illegally occupy another, it really is their state's business.
replies(1): >>44008448 #
1. growlNark ◴[] No.44008448[source]
Only because the state asserts their existence with violence. We certainly have little-to-no say in how the states in which we live behave, but we're all subject to their whims.

Personally, I have little patience for the pretense that the geopolitical theatre we're all subjected to reflects the people who live in the states represented in such theatre. Baudrillard had it right all along.